I’m sure it also has to do with combat. If I wear a skirt while fencing, I might accidentally slice of part of it off.
Also, trousers can be modified to show off a certain part of anatomy that women don’t have, so that might have been another consideration.
Two thoughts:
Economics: Plain skirts take take less sewing as compared to a pair of trousers. One argument for the revival of the “small kilt” in Scotland was that it was more economical for the workingman. And, women were more likely to be affected by low salaries.
Utility: Most women were carried in a cart behind a horse, or rode sidesaddle. The skirt and method of transport reinforced each other. Consider that trousers (bloomers) for women became commonplace when women started using bicycles.
More utility: Pockets are easier to sew into skirts and skirts can be a better place for concealment of items.
And besides, a skirt can have a picture of a poodle sewed onto it. 
I disagree.
When it comes to the last couple of centuries, it’s much easier to date a period by looking at women’s fashion than men’s. Men’s fashion does not change a great deal. Right now I’m wearing a shirt, wool vest, smart jeans and a sort-of blazer. You’d have to go back 50 years for my outfit to look even a little out of place (jeans and blazer would probably have seemed odd in the 60s).
Or, to put it another way, what fashion or styles exist in men’s fashion that do not exist in women’s fashion? Meanwhile, it’s easy to find things that exist in women’s fashion but not men’s.
I’d wager that there are more countries where women wear a greater variety of colors and styles than men.
Here in China the men dress a lot more functionally than women. The same is true of many other asian countries, the majority of the Western world, a lot of Africa…
Heck even your example of India is not as clear cut as you suggest IME. I’ve stayed in India – just a few weeks, but it was in a typical town, not a tourist place – and there were lots of things that women wore, including western styles, and an awful lot of the guys were in the long shirt baggy trousers traditional look.
This fashion reached its peak of size and decoration in the 1540s before falling out of use by the 1590s.
And if you merely swapped out the jeans for dress slacks and added a necktie, you could probably go back nearly 100 years before you started raising eyebrows.
To be fair, I (female) could doubtless find something in my closet that would enable me to “pass” in the styles of 50 or 100 years ago too. But it would look more “old-fashioned” than your outfits would.
It must be so embarrassing for guys when their codpiece falls out of use. 
In the 1760s the Duke of Wellington was refused entry to his club for wearing trousers. The fashion at the time was knee-breeches.
Or rather, “peek of size.” 
Into HIS OWN club? Like, he owned the joint?
No, no, “his club” as in, a club he was a member of. Almack’s, to be precise.
No, they did not.
Why do women wear skirts and men trousers?
So they don’t get laughed at for standing around in their underwear.
The Greeks sculpted some pretty funky trousers. Although, it’s a Trojan (probably Paris) and so this is doubtless an indication of being “forn” - ditto the Phrygian cap.
Man, you might have been the smartest dressed person browsing the Dope at that moment!
Ok, I used trousers as “covers the whole legs, between belly and feet”
so “chausses” in French.
That was in opposition to the various tunics of the clergy or the commoners.
Exapno_Mapcase did a very detailed search.
No. First of all, it is not and has never been “an enormous wad of cloth”. Pads were never bigger than they are today – you change them out, honey.
Second, clothing has always had many functions besides practicality. After ceremonial and larger identity functions (what tribe, clan, or village you belong to), one of its main functions is to denote what class one belongs to. The wealthier the man, the more idle he can afford to keep his wife or wives. Upper class women’s clothing was largely about demonstrating the woman’s incapability of doing any kind of work, due to her clothing, along with accentuating whatever secondary sexual characteristic was thought most erotic at the time. Hence corsets, voluminous skirts, high heels, etc.
Bell-shaped skirts along with tight bodices make an hourglass shape.
When the middle class arose, women’s clothing mimicked the upper class styles as much as could be afforded, for the same reasons.
Trousers for women – in western cultures – were seen by women as freeing and practical. Riding horses astride, riding bicycles, and other energetic activities, were much easier in trousers. Women had to fight very hard to be permitted to wear them.
Still no.
Mediaeval knights wore hose. Two separate legs, didn’t cover the belly. More stockings than trousers. Down to having garters. By the time they joined up fully at the butt and crotch, it was no longer the Middle Ages.
I think it has to do with female modesty. Skirts and dresses conceal the shape and split between the legs. Trousers don’t. Even today, more modest cultures frown on trousers for women, for this reason.
Back in the old days, women generally dressed more modestly than men. That seems to have reversed itself a lot these days, but skirts and dresses are a relic of earlier times.
Shaking my head here…
Well, except for the many traditionally modest cultures where trousers are part of traditional female dress, at least.
Such garments include the “salwar” (sometimes described in western fashion as “harem pants”) and related trouser-like garments of Iranian and South Asian Muslim women, the Chinese “ku”, the Vietnamese “ao dai”, and the woollen trousers of Tibetan women’s dress.
All of these traditional women’s trouser styles are generally accompanied by some kind of tunic-like garment that covers the crotch, but similar long tunics are also worn over trousers by men. Furthermore, there are traditional “skirt”-like garments for both men and women in many of these cultures.
So the general history of female dress doesn’t bear out your assumption that “more modest cultures frown on trousers for women”. Sure, in societies where skirts are already strongly female-coded and trousers male-coded, that’s true. But there’s evidently nothing about the innate shape of skirts vs. trousers that predisposes humans to consider the former more “modest” for women than the latter.
That statement’s not very easy to reconcile with, e.g., William Larkin’s early 17th-c. painting of the Countess of Somerset, and with all the decollete dresses of European women’s fashion in subsequent centuries as well.
Or, for that matter, the arm-baring bust-accentuating chiton of the ancient Roman maiden.